"Lemley James - jlemle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- begin IBM note ---
> Hi James,
>
> This is not a defect. I wrote a new testcase that exhibits the same
> behaviour as the one that was submitted.
IBM's test case is fine, but it's not related to the bug. The
bug, as I understand it, is exhibited when you use bool. IBM's
test case does not involve bool.
Here's a test case that should illustrate the bug:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
bool b = true;
char c[] = "0123456789";
char *d = c + 5;
printf("b is true, which is %x (should be 1)\n", b );
printf("d is %p\n", d);
printf("-2 + b is %d (should be -1)\n", -2 + b);
printf("&d[-1] is %p\n", &d[-1]);
printf("&c[4] is %p\n", &c[4]);
printf("&d[-2 + b] is %p\n", &d[-2 + b]);
if (&d[-2 + b] == &c[4])
printf("&d[-2 + b] == &c[4] (OK)\n");
else
printf("&d[-2 + b] != &c[4] (wrong)\n");
return 0;
}
On my 64-bit machine, it outputs this:
b is true, which is 1 (should be 1)
d is ffffffff7ffff701
-2 + b is -1 (should be -1)
&d[-1] is ffffffff7ffff700
&c[4] is ffffffff7ffff700
&d[-2 + b] is ffffffff7ffff700
&d[-2 + b] == &c[4] (OK)
But my understanding is that you get different (and incorrect) output
with IBM's compiler.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
